The dreaded Reverse Split !

Well folks… there it was for all to see… the CEO of IC Punch Media, Mr. Steven Samblis acknowledging a reverse split is possible. For months and months the bashers over on LieHub have predicted Mr. Samblis would do a reverse split. In contrast, for months and months Mr. Samblis has vehemently denied and had been steadfast in his statements of not doing a reverse split. Well… Mr. Samblis’s post last night seemed to be acknowledgement of a reverse split certainly being a viable option, and in our opinion, the lead-in and set-up of one.

Some of you may remember our post speaking to a reverse split here. Also, here is just one of the posts where Mr. Samblis states he would not do a reverse split because “there is no reason to“. In many, if not all of Mr. Samblis’s statements concerning a reverse split, he has always added that caveat about no need. We believe this was no accident. Has he planned on doing a reverse split all along… who knows, but its obvious to us at least that Mr. Samblis knew this was a tool in his toolbox that was at his disposal at any time. By emphasizing so frequently that he was not going to do a reverse split, he apparently had hoped that readers would latch on to the not going to part and miss and/or underestimate the no need to part. Pretty slick don’t you think ???

On a related issue regarding carefully chosen wording in an effort to mislead… take a close look at this post. In the line about getting assets back and damages from Collins, Mr. Samblis makes a true statement… however, true to what extent? Make a positive difference, a negative difference, or very little difference either way? Take a look at this post from Mr. Samblis, wherein he states “My attorneys feel he is judgment proof because if we won we would never recover a dime from him.”. So what is the point of the statement about making “a difference”? The obvious point that comes to mind is to mislead the reader.

Lets look at the next statement Mr. Samblis makes in the same post. “There is nothing in either agreement that gave him majority control of the company. He could get shares but no place is any percentage of ownership talked about.“. Here again, a true statement, however, that is not the accusation of Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins assertion is that in 90-days he was to “step up as CEO”. The only “control” Mr. Collins spoke about was being elevated to CEO. Mr. Samblis carefully and cleverly attempts to mislead the reader into thinking Mr. Collins has no basis for his statements. Its clear for all to see that the provision about being elevated to CEO is certainly listed in the Mr. Collins Employment Agreement.

Lets look at Mr. Samblis’s statement about the listing of Mr. Samblis’s employment contract. Mr. Samblis states “Collins said there was no record of my employment contract”. What Mr. Collins actually stated was…”Samblis failed to disclose his alleged Employment Agreement at that time. Further, Mr. Collins audited all previous SEC filings for IC Places, all signed by Samblis, and not only was there no mention of this agreement, the annual statements for years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 expressly state “There is no employment contract with Executives or Directors at this time. Nor are there any agreements for compensation in the future”. Now, look at the statement Mr. Samblis quotes in support of his contention Mr. Collins is lying. Do you see anything in there about maintaining majority control of the stock? Mr. Samblis states “but it was in all the books and in public filings”. Again, do you see any mention of the Greystone Park Enterprises, Inc. employment contract in Mr. Samblis’s “example”.

The public filing dated 11/14/2012 states the following: “On November 18, 2005 the Company entered into an employment agreement with Steven Samblis to be our Chief Executive Officer.”. The passage goes on to list the compensation which includes the provision of majority control being maintained. Do you see this employment contract listed in any previous filings, and specifically the part about maintaining majority control of the stock. Take a look at the below graphic, taken from the August 12, 2011 Quarterly report filing here. (click image to enlarge). Do you see anything about an employment contract? What you do see is the specific statement that there are NO employment contracts !

So… Mr. Samblis’s “example” is correct in and of itself, but has no relationship to the accusations Mr. Collins is making. Again, this appears an effort to mislead the reader with true statements which have noting to do with the issue at hand. Pretty slick don’t you think?

Folks, when you read ANYTHING from Mr. Samblis, we suggest you read it carefully. Read it with the original question or issue in mind. We think you will begin to realize many, if not all, of Mr. Samblis’s statements are carefully worded to mislead and deflect the original question. Its the magician concept… shake your left hand to draw attention away from what your right hand is doing.

There were some very good posts yesterday regarding how Mr. Samblis should conduct himself as CEO of the company. Mr. Samblis would be wise to heed their advice. However, its doubtful he will. For instance, take a look at this post here, and Mr. Samblis’s reply to it here. This exchange was back in June of 2013. Do you think Mr. Samblis will heed the good advice he has been given ??? It has been suggested many times, by many investors, that Mr. Samblis hire a professional public relations officer, however apparently Mr. Samblis sees no merit in this action, in spite of the vast numbers of investors telling him its needed. In fact he really doesn’t need to hire one, as it likely any number of posters/investors would be more than happy to step up and volunteer their expertise for this much needed service. But still, all this good advice falls on deaf ears. What does that tell you about the future of the company regardless of any productive business decisions Mr. Samblis may make in the future.

Mr. Samblis is quick to blame anything and everything bad on someone or something else… he really needs to consider revisiting that concept if he has any hope whatsoever of turning this company around !